Siegel & Shuster vs WB: Superman and Infinite Crisis

[biolumen]

Making the movie only makes Supes MORE popular and that would mean paying the Shuster (and Siegel) estates even more money because they know how valuable he is to them then.

Exactly. Why make a movie before a settlement is reached if the movie has the potential of greatly increasing the cost of maintaining the rights to making future movies.

No movies and pretty much no nothing of Superman until after 2013 or until they strike a deal. Might happen. I'm sort of surprised the first decision granting the rights back to the estate didn't prompt a settlement talk. May be since this decision is in the bag, something can be reached.

I think this loss will get the Siegels and Shusters to seek an agreement with WB. This was a pretty big loss for the Siegels. Their options are limited.

[GreenKToo]

Well, Warner and DC will be trying to reap any monetary benefit they can out of Superman right away as the Seigel's are going for the jugular and still want sole control of the property by 2013 according to their recent press release. It took Warner how many years to actually package a new Superman movie? I'd think the safe money is on keeping some of the intact structure to make a faster film than spending time doing the whole shooting match from jumpstreet. Then again, this is Warner Brothers and I could very well see a new casting rumor that'd put Timber-gate to shame.
Casting rumors like Nic Cage or Orlando Bloom? lol. But seriously, imo they will prolly keep routh if its to start filming in 2011 for the simple fact that it will take so long to find another actor.
I would prefer a new actor in the role, but I can't see them doing that.

[GreenKToo]

Ummm ... no. I agree w/ you that the WB will not make a new movie until they secure further rights in the character. The creators will have a piece of the Superman character by 2013, so you're right in that the WB has no reason to invest millions to make a movie that may not even have a sequel. And honestly, studios want franchise films for superheroes, not one-offs. Sadly, for all you fanboys, this decision actually kills Superman flicks until at least after 2013.

UNLESS ... the WB goes to the Shuster Estate prematurely to settle and strike a deal to get Superman back in the pipeline. I don't see this happening. If anything, the WB wants Superman's value to be greatly reduced and nothing like putting him on ice for a long time does that, especially if they think they're going to lose him altogether (which is very possible). Making the movie only makes Supes MORE popular and that would mean paying the Shuster (and Siegel) estates even more money because they know how valuable he is to them then.

No movies and pretty much no nothing of Superman until after 2013 or until they strike a deal. Might happen. I'm sort of surprised the first decision granting the rights back to the estate didn't prompt a settlement talk. May be since this decision is in the bag, something can be reached.
I would agree if the judge hadnt of said this.

''Given that the potential for said commencement of filming exists at the present time, plaintiffs have not shown that the Superman film agreement, sans a reversion clause, is below the reasonable range for what a willing buyer would pay for the property from a willing seller. If, however, by 2011, no filming has commenced on a Superman sequel, plaintiffs could bring an accounting action at that time to recoup the damages then realized for the Superman film agreement's failure to contain a reversion clause."

Now, how much in damages is he talking about, thats the key. Hundreds of thosands? millions? tens of millions? Would it be worth it to WB to at least start filming one by ''11'', or just sit around, do nothing, and wait for the lawsuit. I think its just as possible that they make one as it is they don't.

[FaT_tONle]

No way settling a law suit will be more difficult and less risky than making a successful 200 million dollar Superman film given they already fell flat on their faces with the previous attempt. I will say though, as far as WB sitting on it, I mean wouldn't it be harder to negotiate after 2013 when you have to worry about other bidders, or does WB just think they have too much leverage on the Seigel's would have no choice but to renegotiate with WB if they hope to profit off the character. I think WB will look into 2012 and take some more pitches, and if they are absolutely blown away, which I doubt will happen but if they are, they will re-negotiate immediately prior to 2012. But more realistically, WB will probably take their chances after 2013.

[Fresh Prince]

I love a Smallville movie to hit thearters. Clark already be Superman him turning into Superman in Season 9 so in the movie he be in year 2 as Superman and Darkseid as the main villian with Lex Luthor the minor villian. Darkseid can be hyped up all in season 9 and referenced his orgin and everything so when in the movie he be set to go as a major badass super villian he is. Also Luthor should come back in SV season 9 so in the movie he be already to go too. So both Darkseid and Lex will not be wasted on orgins and returnings cause all that happened on the show. Also have Lex be corporate Lex not scientists Lex and Rosenbum will be the best Lex on screen ever!

P.S. they already have a cast and they would have a story already plus location so the movie would be all set for a 2012 release. Green Arrow and the rest of the Justice League will go on to do their own thing. Oliver go back to Star City and the rest Jl go back to were they came from too. So Superman will not get over shadowed by other heroes and he be on his own. Also Choloe moves somewere too.

[Showtime]

Would Clark give Lois a Super Kiss so she doesn't remember what he looked like without glasses?

[Fresh Prince]

Would Clark give Lois a Super Kiss so she doesn't remember what he looked like without glasses?

No he have those super glassess or whatever they called.

[Fresh Prince]

^LOL!

Not really. No amount of money they'd have to pay the Siegels/Shusters would equal another failed Superman film ranging from 150-200 million dollars w/o promotions etc. The WB is no worse off sitting on the project til 2015 or further.

Agreed so stop acting like lilltle girls and make the damn movie. They can have a Smallville movie. They already have the storyline set and cast.

[Fresh Prince]

This could be very bad. If they're gonna try and hurry up and spit out a Superman movie before they lose the rights, we could very well end up with another Punisher:War Zone or Carpenter Fantastic Four. When you rush things, you often times get an inferior product. This could be very bad. Very bad indeed.

Both were boz office success and good.

[Showtime]

No he have those super glassess or whatever they called.

I dont think that would work. Too many loopholes.

[Fresh Prince]

I dont think that would work. Too many loopholes.

Like how?

[Fresh Prince]

You think a smallville movie be good?

[Showtime]

Well...everybody in Metropolis has seen him without his glasses off...then they are going to see Superman...who looks just like Clark.

[Ita-KalEl]

Well...everybody in Metropolis has seen him without his glasses off...then they are going to see Superman...who looks just like Clark.

Showtime, excuse me if it is an old question, but I would know your point of view about this situation and the future of the franchise. Do you think that we'll see another Superman movie before/after the deal between the parts?

[Showtime]

You think a smallville movie be good?

I think it would work as a TV Movie or DVD.

[GreenKToo]

Would Clark give Lois a Super Kiss so she doesn't remember what he looked like without glasses?
and Lex, and Perry, and jimmy, and......:oldrazz:

[RachelDawes]

:wow: There is so much truth in this post :up:

W.B.s history outthinking themselves is just mindblowing.

"We have box office action star BRENDAN FRASOR and unknown MATTHEW BOMER signed...now we just have to choose....why is this hard???...Ok, Frasor...no, Bomer....I cant pick.....just cancel the damn movie!"

I can only speak for myself, but I would rather have had Bomer than Frasier as Superman.

I think it would work as a TV Movie or DVD.

I wonder if a made-for-TV Smallville movie would satisfy the courts.

[Fresh Prince]

Okay so proably a Smallville movie in thearters not be a goodi dea considering they have to change it too many stuff SV done made up about the whole Superman mythology orgin. But if they make a movie with no cast, storyline they have now it be an epic failure.

[broblacksteel]

Here me out this might be THE ONLY CHANCE Superman has a chance to compete with Batman, The Avengers, Spiderman etc. (the guaranteed blockbusters)

WB needs to have the same balls and risk they allowed with TDK.

Do 2 movies back to back!!! This way you dont have to touch a superman movie for at least 6-8yrs. Im sure the gross from both could be a billion or more.

The only way this could happen is if you KILL superman!!! (cliffhanger??!!)

Thus u have to bring in Doomsday or Darkseid, do NOT bring anyone in who needs kryptonite to hurt him. Sheer force and brutality will draw the audience in more than a gimmick/meteorite.

Cmon WB this lawsuit and being forced to don something within the next 20 months can be a good thing, if the right decisions are made.
:cmad:
DO NOT DO ZOD!!! ITS BEEN DONE BEFORE!!!:cmad:

[GreenKToo]

That would be great except WB would never go for it. At least I doubt they would I should say..

[dark_b]

a studio always did two movies togehter after the first one made a lot of money.

you can not invest into something that you dotn know if the public likes.

[GreenKToo]

The execption being LOTr's. They were pretty much an assured hit before being released tho.

[Fresh Prince]

Here me out this might be THE ONLY CHANCE Superman has a chance to compete with Batman, The Avengers, Spiderman etc. (the guaranteed blockbusters)

WB needs to have the same balls and risk they allowed with TDK.

Do 2 movies back to back!!! This way you dont have to touch a superman movie for at least 6-8yrs. Im sure the gross from both could be a billion or more.

The only way this could happen is if you KILL superman!!! (cliffhanger??!!)

Thus u have to bring in Doomsday or Darkseid, do NOT bring anyone in who needs kryptonite to hurt him. Sheer force and brutality will draw the audience in more than a gimmick/meteorite.

Cmon WB this lawsuit and being forced to don something within the next 20 months can be a good thing, if the right decisions are made.
:cmad:
DO NOT DO ZOD!!! ITS BEEN DONE BEFORE!!!:cmad:

2 movies back to back? Well they need to do a script and cast for a Superman movie plus location. All that by 2011. Thats alot to do or maybe i do not know how to run movies or so forth.

Anyways so you think their should be no reboot just have Clark Superman already? Also i agree have a villian that can challenege Superman. I would even go asfar as leaving Lex out the 2 movies cause he been done to death for 5 movies. Well 4 i forget Superman 3.

Have Brainaic, Metallo or Dooms day and Darkseid fight Superman. That be awesome and yes please no Zod he a cool character and all but he was done in Superman 2 we needs villians like the ones i named that never got day light.

But WB proably will not do this they pussies at times.

[TheComicbookKid]

Man, in the span of two days, two DC franchises get stinky P.R. all over them.


If the WB can barely decide how to make one Superman film, how are they supposed to decide two films?

[GreenKToo]

So true. I'm a pretty patient guy and all, but I would really like to see some of these films in MY lifetime.

[Fresh Prince]

So true. I'm a pretty patient guy and all, but I would really like to see some of these films in MY lifetime.

How old are you? And agreed. But they can make 2 movies if they use their brains peopel in hollywood these days do not do that anymore.

[GreenKToo]

How old are you? And agreed. But they can make 2 movies if they use their brains peopel in hollywood these days do not do that anymore.
I'm too damn old lol. Lets just say i'm old enough to be the fire chief at my workplace.

[Fresh Prince]

I'm too damn old lol. Lets just say i'm old enough to be the fire chief at my workplace.

:hehe:

[TheComicbookKid]

You have to give WB credit. They had Watchmen. They have Jonah Hex and the Losers(about to be) shooting. It just seems that, like with any blockbuster, the more hands in the jar, the more likely things are to get stuck. There needs to be someone stronger to shepard the bigger projects through at DC. I understand there being casting disagreements on GL but leaking to the public like that with no other casting confirmed isn't good business.

The fact that the WB keeps changing their approach to their franchises(it's needs to be dark, no this needs to be like Iron Man) gives a feeling of not a very good connection between DC offices and WB. I'm not saying that Johns should be writing or anything. I don't believe he should be, but their should be a brain trust from DC to help guide the process.

[kedrell]

You have to give WB credit. They had Watchmen. They have Jonah Hex and the Losers(about to be) shooting. It just seems that, like with any blockbuster, the more hands in the jar, the more likely things are to get stuck. There needs to be someone stronger to shepard the bigger projects through at DC. I understand there being casting disagreements on GL but leaking to the public like that with no other casting confirmed isn't good business.

The fact that the WB keeps changing their approach to their franchises(it's needs to be dark, no this needs to be like Iron Man) gives a feeling of not a very good connection between DC offices and WB. I'm not saying that Johns should be writing or anything. I don't believe he should be, but their should be a brain trust from DC to help guide the process.

Totally agree. Marvel's building theirs and Pixar has a great brain trust. DC definitely needs one for their films.

[Octoberist]

Gregory Novak is suppose to be the liaison between DC and WB, but I don't think one dude is enough.

[Fresh Prince]

Totally agree. Marvel's building theirs and Pixar has a great brain trust. DC definitely needs one for their films.

Agreed. Certain super hero films need to be dark certain light.

[kedrell]

Gregory Novak is suppose to be the liaison between DC and WB, but I don't think one dude is enough.

Well a brain trust in the Pixar sense is usually the directors of previous movies who all get together and provide input. Not sure how Marvel is working theirs.

[BATZARRO WWD]

Both were boz office success and good.
Carpenter's Fantastic 4 didn't even GET to the Cinema. We're not talking about this:
http://unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/fantastic-four.jpg
We're talking about This
http://hamrman52.tripod.com/PICFFFIRSTMOVIEFORBLOG.jpg

As for Punisher Warzone: I haven't the actual Box office numbers. I suspect since it fizzled, it didn't do all that great.

But Superman wouldn't HAVE to be rushed. Just under serious develoment within a year and a half. They get to scripting now, it couldn't take a year and a half to get something in the pipeline. They don't have to have the film by 2011. They just have to have the film on the way by that time.

[bunk]

I kind of doubt WB's problem is a shortage of good ideas; it's more likely a lack of consensus about which direction to go in. They could have a script early 2010 if they made some decisions and got the ball rolling.

[Fresh Prince]

Carpenter's Fantastic 4 didn't even GET to the Cinema. We're not talking about this:
http://unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/fantastic-four.jpg
We're talking about This
http://hamrman52.tripod.com/PICFFFIRSTMOVIEFORBLOG.jpg

As for Punisher Warzone: I haven't the actual Box office numbers. I suspect since it fizzled, it didn't do all that great.

But Superman wouldn't HAVE to be rushed. Just under serious develoment within a year and a half. They get to scripting now, it couldn't take a year and a half to get something in the pipeline. They don't have to have the film by 2011. They just have to have the film on the way by that time.

Oh well that Fantastic 4 movie was terrible Carpenter's one was. PWZ was good movie in my opinion.

Also okay well WB should be fine if thats all they gotta do.

[Superman-Prime]

Keep Brandon Routh for Superman reboot!

[Fresh Prince]

Get someone esle.

[bigbluefan]

Keep Routh, change the suit a little, give him a supervillian to trade blows with and everyone's happy. Maybe thats the reason he's bulked up so much to stay in the mix?

[Superman Prime]

Keep Brandon Routh for Superman reboot!

It's not happening, my alternate universe counterpart.

[Ursa]

I like Brandon Routh, but it would be weird to see him in a reboot.

[Showtime]

It's not happening, my alternate universe counterpart.

WTF. There are two of you? :wow:

[LadyofLight]

I'd rather have a Metropolis Movie with the Smallville cast of Welling, Durance, Ashmore and Rosenbaum

[nintendo nerd]

I'd rather have a Metropolis Movie with the Smallville cast of Welling, Durance, Ashmore and Rosenbaum

:facepalm

[Fresh Prince]

I'd rather have a Metropolis Movie with the Smallville cast of Welling, Durance, Ashmore and Rosenbaum

Agreed. SV overall is a good show with alot of followers so it can make good money at the box office which WB cares about mostly anyways. Plus they have a cast & crew plus location. All they would need is too write a story and they be good we could get the movie by either 2012 or 2013. Cause they have to nifish off the last 2 seasons of the show first.

[Fresh Prince]

:facepalm

Whats your problem? Thats a good idea.

P.S. However I agree with your sig MJ was no hero and TF was far from a master piece not even a good movie.

[DavidTyler]

Would Clark give Lois a Super Kiss so she doesn't remember what he looked like without glasses?

and Lex, and Perry, and jimmy, and......:oldrazz:



LOL !!!

Now we're talking about a RADICALLY different Superman movie!

[FilmNerdJamie]

"Oh SuperMANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!"

[Superman-Prime]

It's not happening, my alternate universe counterpart.

Whoa... you stole my name! YOU IMPOSTER!!

:hehe:

[solidsnake86]

superman prime without the (-), where is your avatar from?

[dark_b]

I'd rather have a Metropolis Movie with the Smallville cast of Welling, Durance, Ashmore and Rosenbaum

and here we ........go :hoboj:

[Mostpowerful]

Keep Brandon Routh for Superman reboot!

Keep Routh, change the suit a little, give him a supervillian to trade blows with and everyone's happy. Maybe thats the reason he's bulked up so much to stay in the mix?

AGREED.

He was great, there is no need to replace him.

[Maze]

Carpenter's Fantastic 4 didn't even GET to the Cinema. We're not talking about this:
http://unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/fantastic-four.jpg
We're talking about This
http://hamrman52.tripod.com/PICFFFIRSTMOVIEFORBLOG.jpg

As for Punisher Warzone: I haven't the actual Box office numbers. I suspect since it fizzled, it didn't do all that great.

But Superman wouldn't HAVE to be rushed. Just under serious develoment within a year and a half. They get to scripting now, it couldn't take a year and a half to get something in the pipeline. They don't have to have the film by 2011. They just have to have the film on the way by that time.

You're making a mistake there : Carpenter never has done a FF movie (and it's sad, from him it could have been great) you're talking about the Oley Sassone movie produced by Roger Corman.

[FlawlessVictory]

If WB isn't ready to start production for a new Superman movie by 2011 then they won't. There are always ways around these types of rulings. And what does that even mean, be in production. Could writers being attached mean it is in production. Because if so, they can have several different writers attached for 3 years before they actually really do move on something.

[Superman Prime]

Whoa... you stole my name! YOU IMPOSTER!!

Nay! I am the one true Prime!!

superman prime without the (-), where is your avatar from?

Wish I knew. I ran across it on a Superman fan art site that I can no longer find.

[FilmNerdJamie]

The resolution to this conflict is simple. A Prime-off!

[Fresh Prince]

You're making a mistake there : Carpenter never has done a FF movie (and it's sad, from him it could have been great) you're talking about the Oley Sassone movie produced by Roger Corman.

Yeah but that 94 FF movie sucked.

[Maze]

Yeah but that 94 FF movie sucked.

Oh i agree.

[Fresh Prince]

Worst comic book film ever.

[Lighthouse]

Well, that was kind of the point.

[Fresh Prince]

What point?

[\S/JcDc\S/]

http://www.scifislacker.com/science-fiction/content/view/2/9/

I wouldn't be surprised if JJ turns up in Superman discussions soon (not just fanboys, I mean at the WB, lol)...

[Double Down]

The Warner Bros. deal is just for TV. He has a deal with Paramount for movies.

[aia]

So they have to start making a movie or be sued if they don't. I guess thats why nothing has been happening. I bet they have been waiting for the outcome of law suit. And they decided to wait it out. I mean if it was me i wouldn't make a new movie if it meant the risking losing profits.
Thats the only bit of all this i understand.
So now we meant get Zod after all.....boo!

[\S/JcDc\S/]

The Warner Bros. deal is just for TV. He has a deal with Paramount for movies.

Ya but he is under contract for 6 years, don't you think a relationship with someone of his caliber will likely bring up talks for Superman (if it possibly turning into a rush for reboot development)

[Fresh Prince]

Just have SV be a movie.

[Lighthouse]

Just have SV be a movie.

I'm starting to feel like Cassandra of Troy again.:facepalm

[BATZARRO WWD]

You're making a mistake there : Carpenter never has done a FF movie (and it's sad, from him it could have been great) you're talking about the Oley Sassone movie produced by Roger Corman.

Never did it cross my mind it was THE Carpenter. I though it was A Carpenter(uh, not the trade). Where the heck did I get that, I have no Idea.

[Anubis]

That's right, Corman. Knew it started with a C. Either way, it was a piece of s**t that was put out at the last minute on a shoe string budget before he lost the rights. In Superman's case, it would be a big budget piece of s**t tossed together at the last minute before they lose the rights. :o

[Fresh Prince]

I'm starting to feel like Cassandra of Troy again.:facepalm

Its all WB has right now. They cannot just put a Superman movie out it would be worst then SR. And 4 straight Superman movies is not good.

[aia]

Its abit off a problem isn't it.Rush one together so you don't get sued. Or make one quick and be slated if its rubbish.

[Ultimate_Superman]

I'd rather have a Metropolis Movie with the Smallville cast of Welling, Durance, Ashmore and Rosenbaum

Agreed. SV overall is a good show with alot of followers so it can make good money at the box office which WB cares about mostly anyways. Plus they have a cast & crew plus location. All they would need is too write a story and they be good we could get the movie by either 2012 or 2013. Cause they have to nifish off the last 2 seasons of the show first.

Just have SV be a movie.

Its all WB has right now. They cannot just put a Superman movie out it would be worst then SR. And 4 straight Superman movies is not good.No disrespect to you two but you do understand that among Superman fans SV is held in the same standings if not lower then Superman Returns. So if the Superman fans were the main critics of Superman Returns why do you think a Smallville movie will do better since it is viewed upon the same levels if not lower then SV. Now I am a fan of both SV and SR but I do not see a SV movie doing any better then Superman Returns.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Are we still suppose to seriously entertain the idea that WB is considering a SmallVille movie?

Sorry fans but they ain't making one, anymore than they are making a direct sequel to Superman Returns.

[Ita-KalEl]

Are we still suppose to seriously entertain the idea that WB is considering a SmallVille movie?

Sorry fans but they ain't making one, anymore than they are making a direct sequel to Superman Returns.

I think that we'll not see another Superman Movie for at least 6 years.

[Fresh Prince]

No disrespect to you two but you do understand that among Superman fans SV is held in the same standings if not lower then Superman Returns. So if the Superman fans were the main critics of Superman Returns why do you think a Smallville movie will do better since it is viewed upon the same levels if not lower then SV. Now I am a fan of both SV and SR but I do not see a SV movie doing any better then Superman Returns.

Hey man its cool your still the best man but really i do not like SV but i was saying WB has no script so just have the movie they have everything with SV, cast and crew, locations, storylines. So with them putting that out and hope for the best with that is better then just put stuff out with nothing on the platter.

P.S. SR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>SV

[Fresh Prince]

Now SV is not my cup of tea but i cannot deny the fans the show has. Million viewers makes a show whether soemone likes it or not a good show.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Now SV is not my cup of tea but i cannot deny the fans the show has. Million viewers makes a show whether soemone likes it or not a good show.

Eh, not a good example. I mean, I like the show for the most part but let's be honest with 3-4 mil viewers at best it is lucky to be a cheaper show on a cheaper network. Lois and Clark had like 16 million viewers on I think ABC at its best and still couldn't make it past 4 seasons. If SV were on a larger network with its writing, I doubt it would have even made it to 4 seasons.

I'd love to see how a properly written and produced Superman show would do however. Imagine a new cast, better writers, on ABC or NBC. If L&C would have kept the style to that of season 1, and continued the mythology it had the potential to really last.

[Ring Deacon]

Well you know, Superman is in the Green Lantern script. Maybe if they film the sceen and keep it in the movie that would cover having to have a Superman movie.

[FilmNerdJamie]

It's actually Clark Kent and not Superman.

[Fresh Prince]

Eh, not a good example. I mean, I like the show for the most part but let's be honest with 3-4 mil viewers at best it is lucky to be a cheaper show on a cheaper network. Lois and Clark had like 16 million viewers on I think ABC at its best and still couldn't make it past 4 seasons. If SV were on a larger network with its writing, I doubt it would have even made it to 4 seasons.

I'd love to see how a properly written and produced Superman show would do however. Imagine a new cast, better writers, on ABC or NBC. If L&C would have kept the style to that of season 1, and continued the mythology it had the potential to really last.

Thats because big networks will not give shows a chance i mean thats why alot of shows get caneled they wanna cancel the series for what its getting money and viewers. But i love SV to go to NBC. And they do need better writers. Get Paul Dini and Bruce Timm. They made a great STAS.

But i agree with you sort of but Lois & Clark sucked to me. Sorry. Also they turned SV into the Green Arrow show.

[Fresh Prince]

It's actually Clark Kent and not Superman.

Its actually the Oliver Queen/Green Arrow show.

[FilmNerdJamie]

Its actually the Oliver Queen/Green Arrow show.

I was referring to the cameo in Green Lantern being Clark Kent (not Superman like some are reporting), troll? :huh:

[Ita-KalEl]

Only to be clear without the Superman/Clark Kent cameo I will not go to see Green Lantern. With their greed they arei destroying the future of my favourite character...

[Lighthouse]

Only to be clear without the Superman/Clark Kent cameo I will not go to see Green Lantern. With their greed they arei destroying the future of my favourite character...

:facepalm

[Ita-KalEl]

:facepalm

It's only an opinion of a fan pissed off by the WB.

[FilmNerdJamie]

I realize you're 10000000000000% entitled to your opinion and I respect that. But why have that kind of attitude/feeling towards Green Lantern when it has nothing to do with the highs or lows of the Superman film franchise - especially if it turns out to be as kick-ass as they're hoping? :huh:

Plus with the way things are looking with the "2011 or else!" court ruling, we might in fact get the next Superman installment sooner rather than later.

[Sam]

Only to be clear without the Superman/Clark Kent cameo I will not go to see Green Lantern. With their greed they arei destroying the future of my favourite character...

Well, so be ready. I doubt the Clark Kent cameo will make it in filming script.

[Ita-KalEl]

I realize you're 10000000000000% entitled to your opinion and I respect that. But why have that kind of attitude/feeling towards Green Lantern when it has nothing to do with the highs or lows of the Superman film franchise - especially if it turns out to be as kick-ass as they're hoping? :huh:

Plus with the way things are looking with the "2011 or else!" court ruling, we might in fact get the next Superman installment sooner rather than later.

Yes I know, but I don't want to give my money to the same people that haven't been able to relaunch a triple A franchise in 30 years...

[Lighthouse]

Superman Homepage has a in-depth look at the ruling.

Your Questions About Superman Court Ruling (http://www.supermanhomepage.com/news.php?readmore=6615)

Steve: Is it correct that Warner Bros. is inclined to start production on a new Superman film by 2011? Is there a deadline for when they have to have it in theatres by? I'm guessing they'd want to have it out in cinemas before 2013 so as to earn their share of profits from the film before the Shuster Estate can claim their ownership rights?

Jeff: 2013 could complicate matters for a future film depending on how things work out re: the Shuster estate, but again, it's not a lock that the Shuster estate will win - and even if it does, trademark and other incentives provide a substantial incentive for the Siegel & Shuster estates to license their interest.

Many accounts garble the issue re: the latest ruling & reversion rights. WB technically has a movie option through 2023, but the agreement lacked a standard reversion provision. If WB fails to make a film by the time a standard reversion provision would vest, the judge notes, the Siegels could sue for damages resulting from the failure of the license to include the provision.

However, whether & what the Siegels would win is undetermined. The judge indicates that the value of Siegels' share of the Superman property vis the movie license has the potential to be relatively small, a result of both the "challenged" state of the Superman property & the fact that the Siegels' rights as co-owners are nonexclusive, which means that an arms' length competition to license the property would likely lead each side to bid down the property to make the sale.

As a result, the notion that the WB *must* make a movie to avoid the Siegels' lawsuit is a bit of an overstatement. If WB doesn't make the film and the Siegels' sue, sure, they might face the cost of trial + potential - but by no means certain - damages upwards up a few million dollars. But is there a substantial incentive to spend upwards of 50-100 million dollars on a movie to save yourself, likely at worst, 6 or 7 million but possibly much less?

In fact, the potential 2013 Shuster termination possibly works against the Siegels' here. In a trial re: damages from the missing reversion provision, WB could argue that the rights situation is so complex that it made making another Superman film too risky, even potentially unprofitable, thereby substantially lowering the value of the option & any damages the Siegels might receive in a subsequent lawsuit.

Even the explanations are really complicated. I had a feeling that this "ultimatum" wasn't quite a big a deal as everyone felt it was. My gut feeling tells me we aren't going to see Superman for a long time.

[manofsteel4life]

Superman Homepage has a in-depth look at the ruling.

Your Questions About Superman Court Ruling (http://www.supermanhomepage.com/news.php?readmore=6615)
so basically, were back to where we started..:csad:

[Lighthouse]

so basically, were back to where we started..:csad:

Yep. Welcome back to the 1990s.

[matrix_ghost]

Superman Homepage has a in-depth look at the ruling.

Your Questions About Superman Court Ruling (http://www.supermanhomepage.com/news.php?readmore=6615)



Even the explanations are really complicated. I had a feeling that this "ultimatum" wasn't quite a big a deal as everyone felt it was. My gut feeling tells me we aren't going to see Superman for a long time.

So basically this article says that WB could rather face getting sued by the sielgels for a couple of million as opposed to spending tens of millions on a (potentially risky) new superman movie :huh:

As for the damages that the siegels could demand in their lawsuit , it basically comes down to how profitable any new superman movie could be ? Hence WB stance of not going forward with a superman movie on the fact that the project could be so risky that they may not be able to recover the costs ?

btw here's an interesting WB article that VAriety posted.
I forgot that even after Potter , they still have some huge blockbusters in their line up.
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118005884.html?categoryid=13&cs=1

Warner Bros. stocks tentpole closet
Studio mixing sequels with newcomers like 'Holmes'


Warner Bros. -- the studio that births the most tentpoles -- hopes that the end of the Harry Potter franchise in 2011 won't mean the end of the tentpole production line.
More than any other studio, Warners' focus is on delivering blockbusters like "The Dark Knight" and the Harry Potters. Of the 16 highest worldwide grossers, five have come from WB along with New Line's "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy.

Tentpoles, the thinking goes, can justify megabudgets for top talent, lavish action sequences and special effects since they'll rake in dough for other divisions (TV, homevid, merchandise and vidgames). And in the case of new properties like "The Green Lantern" and "Sherlock Holmes," it can also establish an evergreen franchise.

Studio topper Alan Horn and production prexy Jeff Robinov have said they'd like to have at least four of those blockbusters a year.

The combination of integrating New Line, the shuttering of Warner Independent and Picturehouse and the impact of the WGA strike made it tricky to keep that kind of production level going in 2008. As a result, the studio may be a little light on tentpoles next year and in 2011.

Top of the wish list for Horn and Robinov: For Chris Nolan to figure out a third Batman movie, but nothing's been set yet. Here's what's definite:


•"Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince," directed by David Yates and starring Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint. Opening July 15 after being postponed from November.

•"Sherlock Holmes," directed by Guy Ritchie and starring Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law. Opens Dec. 25 in what the studio hopes will be a franchise launcher.

•"Clash of the Titans," directed by Louis Leterriere and starring Sam Worthington. Opens March 26 in an attempt to replicate the success of "300."

•"Sex and the City 2," directed by Michael Patrick King and starring Sarah Jessica Parker. Opens May 28, two years after the first film grossed over $415 million worldwide.

•"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1," directed by Yates and starring Radcliffe, Watson and Grint. Opening Nov. 19, 2010, in the slot that most of the Potter films have filled.

•"The Green Lantern," directed by Martin Campbell. Opening June 17, 2011. Ryan Reynolds will star in one of the potential crown jewels among the DC Comics library.

•"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2," directed by Yates and starring Radcliffe, Watson and Grint. Opening July 15, 2011. The eight films will probably win up grossing somewhere around $7 billion in worldwide box office.

•"Happy Feet 2," directed by George Miller. Opening Nov. 18, 2011. The 2006 original "Happy Feet" topped $380 million.

•"The Hobbit, Part 1," directed by Guillermo Del Toro. Opening December 2011. New Line and MGM are financing. No casting yet.

•"The Hobbit, Part 2," directed by Del Toro. Opening December 2012. As with "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy, the films will be shot in New Zealand.

The most likely potential tentpoles are "Jonny Quest," which still has no director or cast, and New Line's vidgame adapation "Gears of War," with Len Wiseman attached.

As for another Superman, Horn's indicated that the Man of Steel will not be returning any time soon.

Testifying in a recent court trial over the validity of licensing deals, the studio topper said he hopes to make another "Superman" movie but added that the property wasn't under development, no script had been written and the earliest another "Superman" pic could be released would be in 2012.


So let's see
2010 :
May
Clash Of The Titans

July
Inception

November
Harry Potter & The Deahtly Hallows prt 1

2011:
June
Green Lantern

July
Harry Potter & The Deahtly Hallows prt 2

Nov
Happy Feet 2

Dec
The Hobbit prt 1


2012
Dec
The Hobbit prt 2

So for 2012 seems to be the earliest that we can see a superman movie since the summer and thanksgiving slots are still open.
Also damn. WB is going to have on hell of a profitable year in 2011. Even if Green Lantern bombs , the success of the last potter movie and the hobbit may definately be able compensate for potential losses.

[dark_b]

http://thinkmcflythink.squarespace.com/movie-news/2009/7/12/movie-moan-phils-balls-franchise-news.html

0:39:00 -

p.s. i noticed that you forgot to talk about what will WB do after HP is over :)

[spider-neil]

if its years and years before another superman blame singer for making an absolute BORE FEST.

am I ever going to see superman actually hit 'SOMEONE' of equal or greater power on the big screen in my lifetime? ARRRGGGHHH!!!!!

[dark_b]

if its years and years before another superman blame singer for making an absolute BORE FEST.

am I ever going to see superman actually hit 'SOMEONE' of equal or greater power on the big screen in my lifetime? ARRRGGGHHH!!!!!i agree .poor DC and WB because Singer forced them in greenlighting the script and realising the movie. :csad:

[spider-neil]

i agree .poor DC and WB because Singer forced them in greenlighting the script and realising the movie. :csad:

for the life of me cannot believe they (WB) read singer's script and thought THAT would make a killing at the box office, there is one action sequence worthy of the name in the entire movie. ten years I waited for the new superman movie, TEN YEARS!!

[spider-neil]

super speed
super strength
sees the ENTIRE spectrum
heat vision
cold breath
invulnerability

THAT'S superman's powers stop using frigging kryptonite to negate the above and make him fight someone that can take all of that power and dish out punishment of their own. hollywood is frigging CLUELESS.

[dark_b]

for the life of me cannot believe they (WB) read singer's script and thought THAT would make a killing at the box office, there is one action sequence worthy of the name in the entire movie. ten years I waited for the new superman movie, TEN YEARS!!
are we talking about the WB that made catwomen after B&R? :hehe:

[spider-neil]

are we talking about the WB that made catwomen after B&R? :hehe:


point taken :oldrazz:

[RogueDK]

if its years and years before another superman blame singer for making an absolute BORE FEST.

A- freakin' - MEN!!!!

Talk about being ticked off after waiting 20 years for something special. We end up with a 2 1/2 hour version of The Young & The Restless...in a cape... :whatever:

[FilmNerdJamie]

And yet had it not been for "that damn Singer," there wouldn't have been a Superman film made since Quest for Peace.

I didn't hear fanboys *****in' when they first heard that Singer was going to play off the Donner film(s) with Returns, but now you'd swear they were 100000% against from the start with their (constant) revisionist history. :whatever:

[Superark]

And yet had it not been for "that damn Singer," there wouldn't have been a Superman film made since Quest for Peace.

I didn't hear fanboys *****in' when they first heard that Singer was going to play off the Donner film(s) with Returns, but now you'd swear they were 100000% against from the start with their (constant) revisionist history. :whatever:

:applaud

[Lighthouse]

And yet had it not been for "that damn Singer," there wouldn't have been a Superman film made since Quest for Peace.

I didn't hear fanboys *****in' when they first heard that Singer was going to play off the Donner film(s) with Returns, but now you'd swear they were 100000% against from the start with their (constant) revisionist history. :whatever:

I remember a lot of people who didn't think it was a great idea, but considering it was Bryan Singer, many were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. We also didn't know just how referential he was going to be to the original Donner films. I knew it would serve as a kind of vague continuity, but I didn't think the whole movie was going to feel like a love letter to those films.

[RogueDK]

I remember a lot of people who didn't think it was a great idea, but considering it was Bryan Singer, many were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. We also didn't know just how referential he was going to be to the original Donner films.
Neither did I; when I first heard that Singer was helming the project, I was quite excited.

Then I saw the film and it was instant FAIL for me.

I didn't see that coming but there it was... :csad:

[Showtime]

http://thinkmcflythink.squarespace.com/movie-news/2009/7/12/movie-moan-phils-balls-franchise-news.html

0:39:00 -

p.s. i noticed that you forgot to talk about what will WB do after HP is over :)

I tried to throw the question out there, but it sort of got glazed over. :csad:

[Lighthouse]

I tried to throw the question out there, but it sort of got glazed over. :csad:

I'm still waiting for the announcement that Deathly Hallows, will in fact, be six films.

[Showtime]

I think I said before, but they're most likely going to develop one of the other book properties they bought over the past couple years.

[nintendo nerd]

And yet had it not been for "that damn Singer," there wouldn't have been a Superman film made since Quest for Peace.

I didn't hear fanboys *****in' when they first heard that Singer was going to play off the Donner film(s) with Returns, but now you'd swear they were 100000% against from the start with their (constant) revisionist history. :whatever:


I .... I.....Love you :yay:

[FilmNerdJamie]

Good for you.

[Superman Prime]

Don't start making out yet.

Ever consider that people changed their minds upon seeing the actual film, and decided a lukewarm rehashing was part of what damaged it? What's the issue you were supposed to be so awesomely calling fans on?

[BenReilly19]

And yet had it not been for "that damn Singer," there wouldn't have been a Superman film made since Quest for Peace.

I was thinking the same thing. The franchise was already in development hell for almost two decades before Singer was even hired and it would still be in the exact same position that it is right now, even if he never made SR.

[Superman Prime]

I was thinking the same thing. The franchise was already in development hell for almost two decades before Singer was even hired and it would still be in the exact same position that it is right now, even if he never made SR.

So you're taking on a "it's better than nothing" viewpoint?

Well for some fans, it was worse than having nothing in the way of a new Superman film.

Me? I could argue that we haven't had a Superman film since "Quest for Peace".

"Superman Returns" was a Superman film in name only.

[FilmNerdJamie]

Ever consider that people changed their minds upon seeing the actual film, and decided a lukewarm rehashing was part of what damaged it? What's the issue you were supposed to be so awesomely calling fans on?

Since we're talking about fanboys, it's never enough for them. They're just ungrateful li'l bastards who ***** the moment they're even slightly "let down" by a film. Hell, I've already heard moronic "Well, Nolan can just **** himself if he doesn't wanna do Batman III" statements. Really? "**** Nolan?"

Getting the two definitive Batman films isn't good enough? Jesus Christ.

[FilmNerdJamie]

"Superman Returns" was a Superman film in name only.

Uh, no.
http://forums.superherohype.com/I%27ll%20be%20man%20enough%20to%20admit%20when%20I %27m%20wrong.%20I%20didn%27t%20think%20Green%20Lan tern%20was%20happening.%20I....WAAAAASSSSS...WROOO OOOOOOOONG%21

[Superman Prime]

They're just ungrateful li'l bastards who ***** the moment they're even slightly "let down" by a film.

I'm interested in knowing why you belong to this forum if you're so emotionally upset over very predictable, common reactions from a part of the fanbase. Let's be fair. It's some of them that are unreasonably harsh. For every immature reviewer I've seen, I've seen a level-headed fan to balance the scales.

[FilmNerdJamie]

I'm interested in knowing why you belong to this forum if you're so emotionally upset over very predictable, common reactions from a part of the fanbase. Let's be fair. It's some of them that are unreasonably harsh. For every immature reviewer I've seen, I've seen a level-headed fan to balance the scales.

http://i688.photobucket.com/albums/vv243/FilmNerdJamie/seinfield.gif

[nintendo nerd]

Since we're talking about fanboys, it's never enough for them. They're just ungrateful li'l bastards who ***** the moment they're even slightly "let down" by a film. Hell, I've already heard moronic "Well, Nolan can just **** himself if he doesn't wanna do Batman III" statements. Really? "**** Nolan?"

Getting the two definitive Batman films isn't good enough? Jesus Christ.

Really???

Wow, those are really ungrateful fanboys. It's gonna be impossible to top TDK. So they should be happy if they don't get a new movie. Careful what you wish for you could get something similar to Spider - man3 or Superman 3.

[nintendo nerd]

http://i688.photobucket.com/albums/vv243/FilmNerdJamie/seinfield.gif

Please don't go, you are one of the smartest guys in here. And.....I love Seinfeld.

[BenReilly19]

So you're taking on a "it's better than nothing" viewpoint?

No. I liked Superman Returns but that wasn't my point or my "viewpoint".

The franchise was already in a state of development hell since the 80's and would have continued to be, regardless of SR or Singer.

Well for some fans, it was worse than having nothing in the way of a new Superman film.

Me? I could argue that we haven't had a Superman film since "Quest for Peace".

"Superman Returns" was a Superman film in name only.

Well, If you didn't like the film, you could argue all of that. It doesn't make any difference to me either way.

Personally, I think it's better that some fans got a new Supes film that they enjoyed, rather than no one getting anything but that's me.

[Fresh Prince]

Superman Returns was way better then Quest For Peace.

[nintendo nerd]

Superman Returns was way better then Quest For Peace.

Finally we can agree on something :cwink:

[Superman Prime]

http://i688.photobucket.com/albums/vv243/FilmNerdJamie/seinfield.gif

Oh please.

[FilmNerdJamie]

:whatever:

[Fresh Prince]

Finally we can agree on something :cwink:

****ing A! :up: Smallville sucks too.

[Fresh Prince]

Oh please.

:hehe:

[Superman Prime]

No. I liked Superman Returns but that wasn't my point or my "viewpoint".

I was talking about this:

I was thinking the same thing.

You two were basically saying that SR was better than nothing. You're expecting a bunch of Superman fans to sit back and take whatever is thrown at them without objection. That's neither realistic, or ideal for the future of the franchise.

[nintendo nerd]

****ing A! :up: Smallville sucks too.

Indeed, my friend. Indeed.

But be careful, the Welling fanboys are gonna hunt you down. :shock

[RogueDK]

You two were basically saying that SR was better than nothing. You're expecting a bunch of Superman fans to sit back and take whatever is thrown at them without objection. That's neither realistic, or ideal for the future of the franchise.
:word::up:

[BenReilly19]

I was talking about this:



You two were basically saying that SR was better than nothing.

I never said it was better than nothing. Where are you getting that from? I liked the film and again that wasn't my point. My point was that the franchise would still be in development hell regardless of Singer or SR. That's it.

You're expecting a bunch of Superman fans to sit back and take whatever is thrown at them without objection. That's neither realistic, or ideal for the future of the franchise.

I'm not expecting you or any other Superman fans to do anything.

[solidsnake86]

Almost everyone was loving the connection to the donner movies because STM apparently can't be topped. So don't fool yourselves into thinking its all singers fault. Not to mention with smallville being on the air you honestly can see how the vague continuity was a great idea. The kid killed it, along with the lack of action. Every time someone opens a thread for an origin movie, tons of members say it shouldnt be done.

As for the ruling, I don't think wb would care if they are only going to get sued for a few million which they may or may not loose. So I don't see how they would want to risk another 200 million.

[Ita-KalEl]

Yep. Welcome back to the 1990s.

No, the '90s were far better:

1) Superman was still considered a triple a franchise by the studio.
2) Even without money the Salkings wanted to do another Superman movie (written by Cary Bates).
3) Even the WB wanted to make a great Superman movie.

Now, after SR and this legal battle, at WB they aren't interested anymore in a Superman movie.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

I'm a Supes fan first, and I'll say at this point I just want a damn movie period. Sequel or reboot... I'm good either way, of course now I actually want the reboot so we can finally get a modern origin story.

[Fresh Prince]

Indeed, my friend. Indeed.

But be careful, the Welling fanboys are gonna hunt you down. :shock

I will be fine. Show stupid anyways. Should of ended seasons ago. Like season 5.

[Fresh Prince]

Superman The Movie can be topped. Just put together a great story and cast and it can be topped.

[dark_b]

Really???

Wow, those are really ungrateful fanboys. It's gonna be impossible to top TDK. So they should be happy if they don't get a new movie. Careful what you wish for you could get something similar to Spider - man3 or Superman 3.if i wouldnt see the post i wouldnt be live it. i wouldnt. there is no way that a bat-fan would say this.but its not a myth. tehy are that stupid IMO.

i dont f... care if nolan stops making abtman movies. they guy made two fantastic batman movies. TDK was so good that fans wil leat him alive after the third is realesed.

[Lighthouse]

Indeed, my friend. Indeed.

But be careful, the Welling fanboys are gonna hunt you down. :shock

I will be fine. Show stupid anyways. Should of ended seasons ago. Like season 5.

Is this the Lawsuit thread or the baiting Smallville fans thread? I can't remember.:whatever:

[spider-neil]

of COURSE STM can be topped, give me break. JEEZ! the TDK is better, SM2 is better and if singer wasn't so busy playing homage to the frigging movie (STM) he could have made a better movie as well.

frankly there was no excuse for what he delivered, none. it was lackluster, it was boring and the casting was absolutely TERRIBLE.
lois lane, pulitzer prize winner, and one of the top journalists in the country with a son (mother of all bad ideas) and she looks 15.

you then have a climax of superman lifting a rock into space. oh frigging BRA-VO!! spider-man has a sense shattering battle on the side of a train (SM2) batman hunts down his nemesis on a converted bike (TDK) superman lifts a hunk of rock into space. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

the reason why singer didn't top STM was singer. yes I was optimistic for superman when singer's name was attacted, the guy had just completed x-men 2, one of the best superhero movies ever, never did I dream he would has dished up such DROSS. I'm sorry but making X2 doesn't give singer pass. it looks unlikely we'll see superman for YEARS and I lay the blame squarely at singer's door.

[Showtime]

Stay on topic. There are other threads to talk about these subjects.

[Mostpowerful]

So you're taking on a "it's better than nothing" viewpoint?

Well for some fans, it was worse than having nothing in the way of a new Superman film.

Me? I could argue that we haven't had a Superman film since "Quest for Peace".

"Superman Returns" was a Superman film in name only.

Superman IV was a BOMB. It TOTALLY sucked.

Superman Returns was a blockbuster and got very good reviews. A lot of people liked it and some even loved it (raises hand). Fact. It didn't get a sequel because WB wanted a lot more $$.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_iv_the_quest_for_peace/

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_returns/

[Excel]

I distinctly recall most jizzing their pants when sv.com said they heard Donner might be a producer on Singers film.

[Superman Prime]

Superman IV was a BOMB. It TOTALLY sucked.

Superman Returns was a blockbuster and got very good reviews. A lot of people liked it and some even loved it (raises hand). Fact. It didn't get a sequel because WB wanted a lot more $$.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_iv_the_quest_for_peace/

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_returns/

Warn me from now on when you're going to state the blindingly obvious. I didn't have my sunglasses on that time.

My statement had absolutely nothing to do with the earnings or critical reception of either film.

[Ita-KalEl]

I'm a Supes fan first, and I'll say at this point I just want a damn movie period. Sequel or reboot... I'm good either way, of course now I actually want the reboot so we can finally get a modern origin story.

The problem is that at WB they don't have any intention to make a Superman movie anytime soon.

[Cool Monty]

The problem is that at WB they don't have any intention to make a Superman movie anytime soon.

But don't they kinda have to with this court ruling? What's going to be their defense when the Judge asks why after giving them close to 2 years just to get production going on a Superman film that they preferred to get sued for millions, instead? :huh:

[wellsy]

So, since some people didn't like it Superman Prime, it shouldn't have been made?

Look, I like it, I enjoy SR for what it is. I'd like to see a sequel. That's me.

And considering the utter rubbish that was being tossed around in the 90s (Nicolas Cage as Superman, black costume, Lex Luthor, secret Kryptonian, arial kung-fu from Kryton, giant mechanical spider-villains), it was sure as hell a lot closer to the mark. So close, methinks its just on the rise up the uncanny valley to recognition as Superman.

Frankly, it's all yours to hate if it floats your boat. It's none of my concern what your opinion is, unless you want to push the point and make an argument on it.

Seriously, I can't honestly think WB will want to rush this. They know rushing movies is almost a sure-fire way to put out a failure (think Justice League and the buzz around it). I honestly think they'll be sitting on it, and if a movie is in production by 2011, it won't be by design, but by accident.

Alas, poor scrappy, says I.

[Showtime]

Because somebody loved Superman Returns it was the best movie in the world, and because somebody didn't like it, therefore it isn't even a Superman film.

Nope.

[Ita-KalEl]

Because somebody loved Superman Returns it was the best movie in the world, and because somebody didn't like it, therefore it isn't even a Superman film.

Nope.

Of course, nevertheless the sad truth is that there was only a chance to see another superman movie: the sequel to Superman Returns. The alternative options "sequel or reboot" were only in the weak minds of some fanboys (like steve from savesuperman.com). Now that "Singerman is death", where is your anticipated reboot Steve?
There isn't any reboot, There wasn't any reboot. We have only to wait years if not decades for another Superman movie.

[RachelDawes]

But don't they kinda have to with this court ruling? What's going to be their defense when the Judge asks why after giving them close to 2 years just to get production going on a Superman film that they preferred to get sued for millions, instead? :huh:

I guess they won't put up much of a defense and just pay their millions.

[Superman Prime]

So, since some people didn't like it Superman Prime, it shouldn't have been made?

If it butchers the character of Superman, then I don't consider the character in the film be Superman. That's what I mean by it being Superman in name only.

Some dude on here said if it wasn't for SR, we wouldn't have had a Superman film since "Quest for Peace." I'm pointing out, that unfortunately, to some fans, that is the case.

QFP was a trashy film, undeniably. But I maintain that it was more of a Superman film than SR was.

[TheComicbookKid]

Of course, nevertheless the sad truth is that there was only a chance to see another superman movie: the sequel to Superman Returns. The alternative options "sequel or reboot" were only in the weak minds of some fanboys (like steve from savesuperman.com). Now that "Singerman is death", where is your anticipated reboot Steve?
There isn't any reboot, There wasn't any reboot. We have only to wait years if not decades for another Superman movie.

It's funny how you make an assumption about the possible movie and then bash that Steve guy for making an assumption.

[Cool Monty]

It's funny how you make an assumption about the possible movie and then bash that Steve guy for making an assumption.

Actually, Steve aka Archangel (or King Jackass as Jamie would say :woot:) didn't assume much at all. Most things he would state as fact, because his sources told him so. Then when what he said didn't come to pass, he'd say something must've changed between then and now.

[biolumen]

I guess they won't put up much of a defense and just pay their millions.

It may not even come to that. If WB thinks there's a good chance the Shusters will take their copyright away in 2013, they'll argue that it's unfair to be forced to make a Superman movie now, one that they may never get a chance to make a sequel or one that may not fit into their long term strategy. I'm guessing the courts could be sympathetic to WB's concerns here, and IF, by chance, the Siegel estate wins any damages, it could be for just a token amount.

Now, even if the Siegels are awarded more than a token amount, say a few million dollars, that's still not nearly enough to force WB to rush another $200 million Superman movie into production. As you say, they'll just eat it like they've eaten all those false starts of the past.

As wellsy says, if one is initiated by 2011, it will likely be through an amalgam of fortuitous events.

[GreenKToo]

I was doubting we would see another superman film inside of the next 5 yrs or longer. But now, with the judge ruling that they have to start the production of one by 2011 or else, i'm optimistic.
I feel like the chances of a reboot went up somewhat, and a chance is better than no chance at all.

[dark_b]

Green i think that the chances for a reboot are now lower.

i think it would be easier to take Routh,Langella ,... for the new movie. casting superman takes a lot of time. and people like BR. the guy is............nice :)

[aia]

Green i think that the chances for a reboot are now lower.

i think it would be easier to take Routh,Langella ,... for the new movie. casting superman takes a lot of time. and people like BR. the guy is............nice :)
And theres lotss of girls out there that think he's very nice! Lol.

[04nbod]

by start production does that mean scripts or pre-vis or casting?

And theres lotss of girls out there that think he's very nice! Lol.

Cavill is nicer ;)

[FilmNerdJamie]

There's always this (http://thinkmcflythink.squarespace.com/movie-news/2009/7/14/shusters-now-not-so-secret-work-headed-to-silver-screen.html) between now and 2012...

[Fresh Prince]

Listen like i said for the next Superman film just have it be in a new world. The events of Donner/Singer's Superman movies did not happen. Have it be like James Bond films. Things that happened in the past never happened. Stand alone flick.

Have Braniac as the main villian and Lex Luthor as the secondary villian. Superman can be in his pro years.

[GreenKToo]

Green i think that the chances for a reboot are now lower.

i think it would be easier to take Routh,Langella ,... for the new movie. casting superman takes a lot of time. and people like BR. the guy is............nice :)
maybe. we shall see. I do think that "IF" they make one, (a sequel, a reboot, whatever) Routh will be the guy. It would take longer to find the next ''perfect'' guy than it would take to make the film lol.

[Fresh Prince]

I like either a David Goyer or Micheal Bay Superman.

[Fresh Prince]

Greenktwo they can hire Henry Cavill as ClarkKent/Superman. He a better actor then Brandon Routh. And get Erica Durance for Lois Lane from Smallville cause she plays Lois perfectly.

[GreenKToo]

Imagine the wars here if they brought singer back, lol, oh my.

[GreenKToo]

Greenktwo they can hire Henry Cavill as ClarkKent/Superman. He a better actor then Brandon Routh. And get Erica Durance for Lois Lane from Smallville cause she plays Lois perfectly.
You, I, and alot of others here know that, but this is WB we're talking about.

[FlawlessVictory]

I was doubting we would see another superman film inside of the next 5 yrs or longer. But now, with the judge ruling that they have to start the production of one by 2011 or else, i'm optimistic.
I feel like the chances of a reboot went up somewhat, and a chance is better than no chance at all.

A couple of questions:

1. What is the definition of "be in production" by 2011? There is no release date that is mandatory. So if WB attaches writers to it by 2011, does that count? Could they attach writers to it by 2011 and not have the movie released until 2014? Could they get away with that?

2. What is the penalty for not having the movie "be in production" by 2011? A few million? 10 million? 100 million? Because of the penalty is on the lower end of the millions scale, than I would imagine rather then have WB forced to change what their movie release strategy is for the next few years and be forced to make a Superman movie when the studio is not ready to do so, they would take the penalty. I imagine they are more willing to eat up a few million rather than the enormous money they could potentially lose if they release a movie that didn't fill in their plans originally and it ends up underperforming.

I do believe that regardless of this ruling, WB will release a movie when they are ready to. And most likely, they will find a loophole, like Showtime has mentioned, to allow them get around the current position they are in.

[FilmNerdJamie]

2. What is the penalty for not having the movie "be in production" by 2011? A few million? 10 million? 100 million? Because of the penalty is on the lower end of the millions scale, than I would imagine rather then have WB forced to change what their movie release strategy is for the next few years and be forced to make a Superman movie when the studio is not ready to do so, they would take the penalty. I imagine they are more willing to eat up a few million rather than the enormous money they could potentially lose if they release a movie that didn't fill in their plans originally and it ends up underperforming.

Buddy of mine from another site said to not be surprised if/when the Siegels lawyer(s) argue that the next Superman film would have resulted in more money than Returns - citing that its box-office was that of Batman Begins (solid but non-specular and below projections) followed by The Dark Knight which of course was a monster.

And please don't start with the "But Batman Begins was more popular!" rebuttal. The point is they might make said argument to the courts.

[04nbod]

I like either a David Goyer or Micheal Bay Superman.

Did you see transformers 2? how can you want that travesty for Superman?

[04nbod]

"But Batman Begins was more popular!"[/I] rebuttal. The point is they might make said argument to the courts.

the judge is using X Men as the main point of reference so far. DC could argue that the poorly recieved X Men:The Last Stand impacted Wolverine's gross, same with Fantastic Four, Elektra and so forth. They could argue that The Dark Knight benefitted from the death of one of its main stars as ongoing publicity. Basically DC will point out that poorly reviewed comic book movies spawn less successful sequels along with other evidence such as DVD sales to argue that Batman was a more marketable character for the company than Superman in the first place.

[FilmNerdJamie]

Buddy of mine from another site said to not be surprised if/when the Siegels lawyer(s) argue that the next Superman film would have resulted in more money than Returns - citing that its box-office was that of Batman Begins (solid but non-specular and below projections) followed by The Dark Knight which of course was a monster.

And please don't start with the "But Batman Begins was more popular!" rebuttal. The point is they might make said argument to the courts.

Some people need to seriously grow an ear or two.

[Fresh Prince]

Did you see transformers 2? how can you want that travesty for Superman?

transfomrers 2 was good. What about Goyer then?

[Fresh Prince]

You, I, and alot of others here know that, but this is WB we're talking about.

WB can be stupid at times.

[04nbod]

Some people need to seriously grow an ear or two.

I didn't say anything about Batman Begins. Should the heirs try and counter with the success of the Dark Knight I was pointing out DC's defence. They will bring up DVD Sales of movie AND animation compared to Superman's, they will use comic sales (the recent Batman and Robin issue sold the best since obama appeared in Spider-Man and reached number one while Superman sold half that and came in at 20-something) and prove there is more interest in the Batman CHARACTER. Begins is irrelevant. DC will try to argue the 2 are not alike and compare their situation to the other examples I made above.

transfomrers 2 was good. What about Goyer then?

Better but he was involved with Ghost Rider, Blade Trinity and wrote Wolverine (which I thought was great but its not universally admired)

[GreenKToo]

Some people need to seriously grow an ear or two.
The right lawyer could convince an eskimo to buy ice, and i'm sure they'll hire the best one they can find..
I have no doubt it would hurt wB more by not at least getting a film in production, but thats just me. Time will tell.

[Fresh Prince]

Not his fault Ghost Rider was ass. Acting could of made that movie good. Blade Trinity was decent. Wolverine was decent too. People just like to complain man. Goyer would do a fine job with Superman. Goyer can direct, Bay can be the producer. He can do the action scenes and stuff like that.

[Fresh Prince]

Lol Obama in Spiderman comic.

[RachelDawes]

Seriously, I can't honestly think WB will want to rush this. They know rushing movies is almost a sure-fire way to put out a failure (think Justice League and the buzz around it). I honestly think they'll be sitting on it, and if a movie is in production by 2011, it won't be by design, but by accident.

Alas, poor scrappy, says I.

I can't get too excited by this news, either. I've gotten my hopes up in the past only to have them dashed, so now I'll believe a Superman film will happen when it happens.

Imagine the wars here if they brought singer back, lol, oh my.

*Shudders* I hadn't even considered that possibility.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

A couple of questions:

1. What is the definition of "be in production" by 2011? There is no release date that is mandatory. So if WB attaches writers to it by 2011, does that count? Could they attach writers to it by 2011 and not have the movie released until 2014? Could they get away with that?

2. What is the penalty for not having the movie "be in production" by 2011? A few million? 10 million? 100 million? Because of the penalty is on the lower end of the millions scale, than I would imagine rather then have WB forced to change what their movie release strategy is for the next few years and be forced to make a Superman movie when the studio is not ready to do so, they would take the penalty. I imagine they are more willing to eat up a few million rather than the enormous money they could potentially lose if they release a movie that didn't fill in their plans originally and it ends up underperforming.

I do believe that regardless of this ruling, WB will release a movie when they are ready to. And most likely, they will find a loophole, like Showtime has mentioned, to allow them get around the current position they are in.


I also have been pondering what the amount actually is. If it were like 100 million then I'd say production will start before 2011. Somehow I doubt it will be that much. If it is like 10-20 million and they don't want to make a film, they will take the hit like they've taken hits on failed Supes projects in the past.

Btw, if they DO have to get a film rolling, does Singer's contract penalize them for getting a different (new) director?

[Fresh Prince]

If Singer come back ibe upset. I want Goyer or Bay.

[Cool Monty]

Why on this blue earth would anyone want Bay for Superman? His movies have storylines as thin as paper. Goyer, I can deal with a little better because he helped out with Batman Begins and such.

[FilmNerdJamie]

Bay or Goyer? God, no.

[Mostpowerful]

Why on this blue earth would anyone want Bay for Superman? His movies have storylines as thin as paper. .

AGREED. It's mind-blowing to me.

Bay's movies are generic, formulaic, shallow and forgettable, imo. He can't even direct action well. Yuck.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

They would both be way down my list as well. Although I'd put Bay a little higher cause I think he'd get the atmospheric look better than Goyer for a Superman film.

[Fresh Prince]

Bay be producer like he will not direct. He just be their to deliver action which he does so well. Goyer be director.

[RachelDawes]

Bay be producer like he will not direct. He just be their to deliver action which he does so well. Goyer be director.

Goyer's directorial resume on imdb is none too impressive.

[Fresh Prince]

Goyer's directorial resume on imdb is none too impressive.

give him a chance.

[Superman Prime]

Why on this blue earth would anyone want Bay for Superman? His movies have storylines as thin as paper. Goyer, I can deal with a little better because he helped out with Batman Begins and such.

Great film, but some of the worst aspects about BB came directly from Goyer; including the generic, cliche lines of dialogue.

[Motown Marvel]

give him a chance.

not on superman.

hell, personally, i wouldnt even give him the wonder twins. he's an awful director and a very mediocre writer.

[RachelDawes]

give him a chance.

This next movie could be Supes's last chance for a while, so no.

[BATZARRO WWD]

If we could get the restrained Bay from Transformers 1, It might be worth watching. On the other hand, there are probably better choices than Bay out there.

[hippie_hunter]

I love Michael Bay movies (Pearl Harbor excluded), because I enjoy them for the shallow explosion fests that they are. So for that reason, I don't want him to direct a Superman movie because a Superman movie needs to be more than a shallow explosion fest.

[Fresh Prince]

Okay sorry for Bay & Goyer then. Alright Gullerimo Del Torro then?

[GreenKToo]

It needs a bigtime director. A Jackson, Spielberg, or Howard. Not necessarily any of these, but someone on that level.
If they could get a director like one of the above, imagine the cast they could get or the effects and action we would see.

[Fresh Prince]

Well whats wrong with them 3?

[GreenKToo]

Absolutely nothing. I just doubt they would do it.

[Superman Prime]

I could see Jackson possibly doing it. As we all know, he has an affinity for legendary classics.

[GreenKToo]

I could see Jackson possibly doing it. As we all know, he has an affinity for legendary classics.
Correct me if i'm wrong but isnt the hobbit a WB film?

[Superman Prime]

LotR was, so The Hobbit likely is. Why?

[Antonello Blueberry]

It was a New Line movie, so it will be a WB release.

[BenReilly19]

It needs a bigtime director. A Jackson, Spielberg, or Howard. Not necessarily any of these, but someone on that level.
If they could get a director like one of the above, imagine the cast they could get or the effects and action we would see.

It doesn't necessarily need a big time director. An indie director was able to resurrect Batman and make it into a huge franchise. Not to mention he was also able to put together an Oscar caliber cast for it.

[Fresh Prince]

Peter Jackson be great for a Supes fim but i love Spielberg better. I love to see what either them 2 do to a Superman movie. Maybe it be a oscar award winning classic film.

[Fresh Prince]

BenReilly thats true.

[Superman Prime]

It doesn't necessarily need a big time director. An indie director was able to resurrect Batman and make it into a huge franchise. Not to mention he was also able to put together an Oscar caliber cast for it.

It's the safest way to go.

[GreenKToo]

LotR was, so The Hobbit likely is. Why?
I was just wondering if Jackson had any existing connections with wB.
I see that he does.

[BenReilly19]

It's the safest way to go.

Not really. History has proven other wise with these type of franchises. How many of them are helmed by big time directors?

[GreenKToo]

It doesn't necessarily need a big time director. An indie director was able to resurrect Batman and make it into a huge franchise. Not to mention he was also able to put together an Oscar caliber cast for it.

If it had of been 9 yrs since the last Superman film I would agree with you, but since S.R. is still fresh in peoples minds, I think they should give the reins to a PROVEN director thats had several blockbusters under his belt.
You dont give the keys to a ferrari to a person thats only been driving a yr. imo of course.

This time it will be different. Get it wrong again and it may be several several yrs before we see him on the big screen again.

[Superman Prime]

Not really. History has proven other wise with these type of franchises. How many of them are helmed by big time directors?

As if we have very much history to go on with superhero films. Treating it as a film in general, one which has the odds very much against it, it needs a big name director, and one or more big stars.

[BenReilly19]

As if we have very much history to go on with superhero films.

We've had enough history with these franchises to know that you don't need a big time director to succeed. Raimi with Spider-Man, Singer with X-Men, Nolan with Batman, Favreau with Iron Man, Donner with Superman.

Is that enough history for you...?

Treating it as a film in general, one which has the odds very much against it, it needs a big name director, and one or more big stars.

It doesn't need a big time director to succeed. Would it be cool to have one... sure, but it's by no means a necessity or the "safe choice".

[Superman Prime]

Is that enough history for you...?

Not really. Especially considering none of those were dealing with characters in the situation Superman is in now.

And no, Batman doesn't count. B&R was nearly a decade gone before BB came along.

sure, but it's by no means a necessity or the "safe choice".

What aren't you getting?

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

And yet had it not been for "that damn Singer," there wouldn't have been a Superman film made since Quest for Peace.

I didn't hear fanboys *****in' when they first heard that Singer was going to play off the Donner film(s) with Returns, but now you'd swear they were 100000% against from the start with their (constant) revisionist history. :whatever:

Since we're talking about fanboys, it's never enough for them. They're just ungrateful li'l bastards who ***** the moment they're even slightly "let down" by a film. Hell, I've already heard moronic "Well, Nolan can just **** himself if he doesn't wanna do Batman III" statements. Really? "**** Nolan?"

Getting the two definitive Batman films isn't good enough? Jesus Christ.

These posts are golden Jamie, I remember before SR was released also, everyone praising everything Singer did to high heaven, and then when the movie came out, and had a few things they didnt like it was the worst movie ever. I will never what it is with fanboys that a flawed movie automatically means "the worst movie ever" or "[insert here]ENO."

Personally, I loved Sr and would love to see Singer and Brandon back.

http://i688.photobucket.com/albums/vv243/FilmNerdJamie/seinfield.gif

I literally LOL'd at this one Jamie!

[Superman Prime]

I've never seen anyone call SR "the worst movie ever." Even if they did, it would probably be hyperbole.

Amazing how fans sometimes change their minds after seeing the final product, though. God have mercy on their souls.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I've never seen anyone call SR "the worst movie ever." Even if they did, it would probably be hyperbole.

Amazing how fans sometimes change their minds after seeing the final product, though. God have mercy on their souls.

Never had a problem with people changing their minds, but, people knew everything we were getting when they went into the movie, yet didnt like it when stuff they KNEW were going to happen, did happen. That I just dont get.

Oh, and believe me, people have called SR one of the worst movies ever.

[BenReilly19]

Not really. Especially considering none of those were dealing with characters in the situation Superman is in now.

Doesn't matter. If any of those guys would have failed, those characters wouldn't have had another shot on the big screen for a long time (Donner being the exception because he was filming the sequel and the first film, simultaneously).

All those guys we're in charge of adapting a big screen version of a comic book and bringing it to the masses. They all succeeded and none of them were big name directors.

And no, Batman doesn't count. B&R was nearly a decade gone before BB came along.

Batman DOES count and that is a perfectly apt example to Superman's situation. Christopher Nolan was hired in early 2003. That was less than six years after B&R and exactly 8 years in between films.

According to Horn, 2012 is the earliest we will see another Superman film and that's best case scenario. That's a six year gap in between SR and the next film and it could be even longer.

The situations are almost exactly the same.

[Superman Prime]

Doesn't matter.

Yes. It does. Those directors weren't dealing with franchises that had recently become stigmas. So after the fact they "did it right." That's not the point.

This is the point: it doesn't matter how "right" the next director does it as long as the crowds turn a blind eye to Superman anyway. I say we get a big name director to spark the interest of that director's supporters.

That is the final time I explain.

[kedrell]

If I were WB, I'd get someone like Darrin Aronofsky to helm the film. It'd be Nolan/Batman all over again....except it'd be w/ Superman. But a clean break w/ the past is needed in order for this franchise to thrive again.

[BenReilly19]

Yes. It does. Those directors weren't dealing with franchises that had recently become stigmas. So after the fact they "did it right." That's not the point.

Nolan did. The Batman franchise was in even worse shape and had a much bigger stigma. Another failure would have killed it for a long time.

This is the point: it doesn't matter how "right" the next director does it, if the crowds are going to turn a blind eye to Superman anyway. I say we get a big name director to spark the interest of that director's supporters.

A director's fanbase will be an insignificant fraction of the audience. The general public is who you need to get on board to make the film a success.

The right guy for the job will do that. Finding a director with the right intentions and sensibilities for Superman is far more important than how big of name he is.

[Superman Prime]

Nolan did. The Batman franchise was in even worse shape and had a much bigger stigma.

Yeah, because Batman was struggling so hard to stay in the public consciousness. In 2005, Batman was so extremely difficult to appropriately mold for a modern audience, considering his dark nature was in stark contrast to what audiences were expected to embrace.

^ In an alternate universe.

[kedrell]

Pretty much no matter what, the next Superman movie isn't gonna do great numbers. Batman Begins didn't, even though the movie was liked by almost everyone. It's the sequel after the next Superman film(presuming that one is really well received) that's where the real big $ rolls in.

[Superman Prime]

But I think in this case, the big money does need to roll in alongside critical acclaim. As I said in a very backwards way in my last post above, Superman is in stark contrast to the modern trend. When will the trend change? Maybe with Star Trek II (Star Wars came in 1977 and changed a very similar trend). It looks like they're sticking with the optimistic future seen in the original series, which could prove helpful for the future of Superman films.

[BenReilly19]

Yeah, because Batman was struggling so hard to stay in the public consciousness. In 2005, Batman was so extremely difficult to appropriately mold for a modern audience, considering his dark nature was in stark contrast to what audiences were expected to embrace.

^ In an alternate universe.

It's that dark nature that Nolan brought back to the character after the series was nearly killed with Schumacher's camp-fest. Which goes back to my original point. It wasn't a big time director that accomplished that, now was it?

^ In our universe.

[Superman Prime]

You are very deliberately dancing around my point, Ben.

I guess the only solution is to send you to the Phantom Zone.

[BenReilly19]

You are very deliberately dancing around my point, Ben.

I'm not deliberately dancing around anything. I've addressed your points and have disagreed with them.

Did I miss something?

[Superman Prime]

Okay, okay, I'll break this down.

Nolan had to overcome: stigma.

The director for Superman will have to overcome: stigma and the modern trend of "dark."

Look, Stop treating these like they're exactly the same situation. They clearly are two different beasts. "Nolan did it" is not applicable.

[BenReilly19]

Okay, okay, I'll break this down.

Nolan had to overcome: stigma.

The director for Superman will have to overcome: stigma and the modern trend of "dark."

Look, Stop treating these like they're exactly the same situation. They clearly are two different beasts. "Nolan did it" is not applicable.

I don't buy into the notion that modern audiences only accept dark heroes. Spider-Man succeeded and so did Iron Man.

[Superman Prime]

double post

[Superman Prime]

They will have a tendency to accept dark superheroes, especially after TDK.

Spider-Man is "kinda" light like a Superman story, but why are you including Iron Man there? It's lead character, Tony Stark, is far removed from Superman. He's a borderline anti-hero.

[BenReilly19]

They will have a tendency to accept dark superheroes, especially after TDK.

Spider-Man is "kinda" light like a Superman story, but why are you including Iron Man there? It's lead character, Tony Stark, is far removed from Superman. He's a borderline anti-hero.

Iron Man's tone (in Favreau's film) was far closer to the Spider-Man movies, than Batman or any other dark character.

Regardless, it's a non-factor.

None of your reasons would give a big name director an advantage over an up & coming one.

[Superman Prime]

double post

[Superman Prime]

The leader characters are the main issue here. Tony Stark is much closer to Batman. The guy's a smartass playboy and avenger on the side.

Regardless, it's a non-factor.

None of your reasons would give a big name director an advantage over an up & coming one.

I have made a sound argument. You came rather close to achieving the same, but with these statements, I can only conclude you have nothing left. So no cigar.

[BenReilly19]

The leader characters are the main issue here. Tony Stark is much closer to . The guy's a smartass playboy and avenger on the side.

The film's tone is still light-hearted and much closer to Spider-Man, than to Batman. That's the main issue.

Regardless if you agree or not, let's just use Spider-Man as the prime example of how a light-hearted superhero can be very successful with the public.

I have made a sound argument. You came rather close to achieving the same, but with these statements, I can only conclude you have nothing left. So no cigar.

Your argument makes no sense, none.

Your whole argument is that big name director will have a much greater chance at adapting a Superman film and you've given nothing to back that statement up.

I've shown you that most of the previous directors of successful superhero films, were not big name directors. You claim that Nolan's situation was different, just on the fact that Batman is an easier sell because the general public only goes for darker heroes. The Spider-Man franchise (a billion dollar franchise) proves that theory is untrue.

I'm still waiting for you to make this sound argument, that a big name director has a better chance at succeeding.

[Fresh Prince]

Nothing wrong with a big time director. He can direct. Also nothing wrong with A list celebs playing heroes they can act. I do not wanna hear that bullsthi we be watching them and not the hero they playing ********! You are watching the hero they play and also them.

[Superman Prime]

I'm still waiting for you to make this sound argument, that a big name director has a better chance at succeeding.

Why are you labeling them "big name" (read: BIG NAME) directors if you believe them not to have any advantage? How do you think they earned that title, Ben? It was because they delivered large amounts of cash. The fact you believe that isn't an advantage, sounds like a raging contradiction to me.

And I want a full explanation for that contradiction, Ben. Don't ignore it. Answer for it.

I don't have to throw box office numbers at you to prove anything. The fact we're talking about bringing in director titans here speaks enough for itself.

And Spider-Man isn't Superman. And did you notice the darkness pervading Spider-Man 3, both in the character and the story? It's not a coincidence that they chose that Spider-Man story to tell at the time they did. Unless they pull a red kryptonite story out, Superman remains a light character. Society associates him with optimism, boy scout goodness, etc. etc. He is what he is, and what he is will work against the grain.

[GreenKToo]

I think a big name director would/could succeed because of,
A) experience. nothing beats it.
B) people would much rather see a film by a spielberg or jackson than one by an indie film director that has never made a big budget film before, and personally, I dont want one getting on the job training with Superman. The film will need all the help it can get the way it is.
C) A big named director would have a much easier time drawing in an A list cast. yes there are exceptions like nolan, but thats generally not the rule.

[BenReilly19]

Why are you labeling them "big name" (read: BIG NAME) directors if you believe them not to have any advantage? How do you think they earned that title, Ben? It was because they delivered large amounts of cash. The fact you believe that isn't an advantage, sounds like a raging contradiction to me.

And I want a full explanation for that contradiction, Ben. Don't ignore it. Answer for it.

I don't have to throw box office numbers at you to prove anything. The fact we're talking about bringing in director titans here speaks enough for itself.

When did I ever say a big name director doesn't have ANY advantages? Your the one making up these contradictions, not me.

I said they're not NECESSARY to make a great Superman film and a lesser known or an up & coming director could make just as, if not a better Superman film.

You seem to believe that a big name director seems to be the safe choice and the only way to go and I disagree with that notion.

And Spider-Man isn't Superman. And did you notice the darkness pervading Spider-Man 3, both in the character and the story? It's not a coincidence that they chose that Spider-Man story to tell at the time they did. Unless they pull a red kryptonite story out, Superman remains a light character. Society associates him with optimism, boy scout goodness, etc. etc. He is what he is, and what he is will work against the grain.

Spider-Man is a lighthearted character. Have you ever read his comics. I grew up on them. This is a character who is always upbeat and even when everything is going wrong, he'll still find something to crack a joke about.

As far as Spider-Man 3 goes, you answered your own question. Peter being under the influence of the symbiote, is the equivalent of Superman being under the influence of Red Kryptonite.

Did you believe that's what Peter Parker was supposed to be like?

[Superman Prime]

double post

[Superman Prime]

Spider-Man 3 was still dark, with Peter being dark, regardless of the reason.

I said they're not NECESSARY to make a great Superman film and a lesser known or an [b]up & coming director could make just as, if not a better Superman film.[b]

Aha. I've already covered this. Of course an unknown could come along and make a great Superman film. However, that's not the most ideal way to go right now. Superman, like I said, needs all the advantages he can get for a new film. The majority have confidence in certain well-known directors. The majority needs to be on this film's side. Big name director. Starring role(s). Great story complemented by breath-taking action and fight sequences. There we go.

I think a big name director would/could succeed because of,
A) experience. nothing beats it.
B) people would much rather see a film by a spielberg or jackson than one by an indie film director that has never made a big budget film before, and personally, I dont want one getting on the job training with Superman. The film will need all the help it can get the way it is.
C) A big named director would have a much easier time drawing in an A list cast. yes there are exceptions like nolan, but thats generally not the rule.

Exactly. If I was somehow completely incapable of explaining it to you, Ben, hopefully Green can.

[FilmNerdJamie]

Spider-Man 3 was still dark, with Peter being dark, regardless of the reason.

No argument(s) here.

http://i688.photobucket.com/albums/vv243/FilmNerdJamie/a46e42330b7480e7d16c822f4c55068d.gif

[BenReilly19]

Spider-Man 3 was still dark, with Peter being dark, regardless of the reason.

The reason does matter Prime. You can't define Parker's character by his actions in that film. He's not a dark character, far from it. It's like defining Superman's character as a whole, from the the evil version in Superman III.

Aha. I've already covered this. Of course an unknown could come along and make a great Superman film. However, that's not the most ideal way to go right now. Superman, like I said, needs all the advantages he can get for a new film. The majority have confidence in certain well-known directors. The majority needs to be on this film's side. Big name director. Starring role(s). Great story complemented by breath-taking action and fight sequences. There we go.



Exactly. If I was somehow completely incapable of explaining it to you, Ben, hopefully Green can.

Fair enough but all that can be achieved with a lesser known filmmaker as well, if he's the right guy and he makes the right decisions with the project.

Basically, what it all comes down to (for me) is how the director will approach the material, how good of a grasp he has on the character and his world, and having the right sensibilities for this property. That's what needs to be taken into account first and foremost, not his name value.

Now, the right guy for the job could be either a big name or a lesser known but by no means is the big name necessary nor does he have the bigger advantage of making a better film. It all comes down to the specific individual.

I hope I've been clear with my post as well.

[Superman Prime]

The reason does matter Prime. You can't define Parker's character by his actions in that film. He's not a dark character, far from it. It's like defining Superman's character as a whole, from the the evil version in Superman III.

This wasn't a discussion about how to define Peter Parker. It was a discussion about how modern superhero films are more inclined towards the dark, which is exemplified in Peter Parker's actions in the film while being affected by the symbiote. I'm not saying he's a dark character, but at times in Spider-Man 3, he was, partly due to pandering to trends.

[dark_b]

No argument(s) here.

http://i688.photobucket.com/albums/vv243/FilmNerdJamie/a46e42330b7480e7d16c822f4c55068d.gifdo you have a folder on you computer ''SHH_gifs'' ?

[BenReilly19]

This wasn't a discussion about how to define Peter Parker. It was a discussion about how modern superhero films are more inclined towards the dark, which is exemplified in Peter Parker's actions in the film while being affected by the symbiote. I'm not saying he's a dark character, but at times in Spider-Man 3, he was, partly due to pandering to trends.

It wasn't an attempt to take the franchise into darker territory, it's an aspect of the Venom storyline, which had already been done in other mediums. It's the equivalent to Superman turning evil in Superman III, or him being on Red K in the comics.

Even if it was an attempt to go dark, then it utterly failed when you compare it to the success of the previous flicks.

[Superman Prime]

I don't believe it was a coincidence that they chose that story, or how they did it when they did. I've said that. And what do you mean "failed"? In respect to critics or box office? Because if it's the latter, Spider-Man 3 was a successful hit. It received at least lukewarm critical reaction.

[GreenKToo]

It wasn't an attempt to take the franchise into darker territory, it's an aspect of the Venom storyline, which had already been done in other mediums. It's the equivalent to Superman turning evil in Superman III, or him being on Red K in the comics.

Even if it was an attempt to go dark, then it utterly failed when you compare it to the success of the previous flicks.
Yeah it did. I agree with you there. when I was in the theater people were laughing at parts that i'm sure were not meant to be funny.

[Fresh Prince]

Sorry SupermanPrime but i disagree with you this time. Peter was not dark.

You call this dark? Not even dark humor.

http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m187/FatalRemedy/dancingpeterparker.gif

[BenReilly19]

I don't believe it was a coincidence that they chose that story, or how they did it when they did. I've said that.

Venom and the symbiote weren't even going to be in the film. Originally, the villains were going to be Sandman and Vulture. Raimi's never been a fan of the Venom character but Avi Arad persuaded him to use him.

Venom wasn't chosen because they felt a need to take the franchise in a darker direction, it's just another aspect of Spider-Man's world.

And what do you mean "failed"? In respect to critics or box office? Because if it's the latter, Spider-Man 3 was a successful hit. It received at least lukewarm critical reaction.

I meant that if you believe that Spider-Man 3 was their attempt to take the franchise in a darker direction because that's what the audience wants, then that attempt failed because the first two films were far better received. I guess darker isn't always what the audience wants.

[BenReilly19]

Sorry SupermanPrime but i disagree with you this time. Peter was not dark.

You call this dark? Not even dark humor.

http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m187/FatalRemedy/dancingpeterparker.gif

LOL :hehe:

[Fresh Prince]

LOL :hehe:

And that was Spiderman 3.:o

[kedrell]

Nolan's Batman Begins isn't the only reboot that was successful. There was Casino Royale and Star Trek as well. I really think Star Trek(being a lite and optimistic movie, yet still serious and not goofy) is the kinda tone a Superman film needs, rather than getting all dark like Batman.

[Jochimus]

Nolan's Batman Begins isn't the only reboot that was successful. There was Casino Royale and Star Trek as well. I really think Star Trek(being a lite and optimistic movie, yet still serious and not goofy) is the kinda tone a Superman film needs, rather than getting all dark like Batman.

I agree. :up:

[Fresh Prince]

Alot of people wanted a Superman movie be in the direction like Star Trek. Action/Science Fiction.

[JackMercy]

Alot of people wanted a Superman movie be in the direction like Star Trek. Action/Science Fiction.

...And still do.

...Even more now...


:word:

[Mostpowerful]

:word::word::word::word::word::cwink: lol

[Motown Marvel]

the problem with attaching a big name director can be ego. they dont want to make SUPERMAN, they want to make tim burtons superman, or JJ abrams' superman, or whatever, and by the end of the movie its not even superman anymore, its a whole new character that happens to be wearing an S on their chest.